Suchergebnisse

The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; The paper discusses the characteristics of modern American presidential political rhetoric with special reference to Barack Obama's speeches in which he addressed the highly publicized killings of black Americans. Three of the analysed speeches contain Obama's rhetorical reaction to the judicial decisions not to indict the police officers responsible for the killings, while one speech gives his immediate reaction to the mass murder of black parishioners by a white supremacist. The study is based on the discourse-linguistic analysis of attitudinal meanings and their functions, which are conceptualized as evaluative frames. Evaluative frames are used to highlight different kinds of discourse participants through judgments of behaviour, attributions of emotions and evaluations of semiotic phenomena and objects. The theoretical framework for the different categories of evaluative frames is based on the theory of news framing and theory of evaluative language within systemic-functional linguistics. The findings of the analysis show that Obama uses an interplay of positive and negative evaluations of different kinds to transcend racial categorizations and avoid a direct attribution of blame. When he acknowledges the continuing relevance of the racial divide in US society, he often applies evaluative frames in such a way that they unify rather than divide the discourse participants on both sides of the divide. ; V prispevku so obravnavane značilnosti sodobne ameriške predsedniške politične retorike s posebnim poudarkom na govorih Baracka Obame, s katerimi se je odzval na uboje temnopoltih Američanov. Trije od analiziranih govorov vsebujejo Obamov odziv na sodne odločitve, ki so zavrnile obtožbo policistov, odgovornih za uboj, v enem od govorov pa se je odzval na množični umor temnopoltih faranov s strani belega skrajneža. Študija temelji na analizi jezikovnih kategorij vrednotenja, ki so pojmovane kot okviri vrednotenja. Okviri vrednotenja udeležence v diskurzu osvetlijo s presojami vedenja in pripisovanja čustev ter z vrednotenjem predmetov in pojavov. Koncept okvirov vrednotenja temelji na spoznanjih teorije medijske komunikacije in teorije jezika vrednotenja v sistemsko-funkcijskem jezikoslovju. Ugotovitve analize kažejo, da Obama uporablja preplet pozitivnih in negativnih vrednotenj različnih vrst, da bi presegel rasno kategorizacijo in se izognil neposrednemu pripisovanju krivde. Raziskava pokaže tudi, da Obama rasne razdelitve pogosto uokvirja tako, da udeležence na nasprotnih straneh poenoti z istim okvirom.

Platform work is often characterised by economic insecurity, dehumanising control procedures, isolation, deepening racial, economic and gender inequalities, and other socio-economic problems. There are lively debates underway concerned with how to regulate or limit the negative effects of platform capitalism. This article reviews two of the most common calls for action – regulation and platform co-operatives. We argue that there is also an unexplored, complementary option, which uses the network effects of platforms to provide greater benefits for platform workers. To understand this alternative, we introduce the American Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) mechanism for employee buyouts, redefine the model according to the main cooperative values, and apply it to the platform economy. We conclude that there is a third option is available to governments and municipalities, namely to require an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in the local subsidiary of the platform company. Keywords: Platform economy, platform co-operativism, employee buyouts, platform ESOP

Book, written in Slovene, discusses the legal content and scope of the concept of discriminatory harassment, which is deemed to be an unlawful discrimination under modern EU non-discrimination law, in the context of implementation of provisions of relevant EU directives in legal systems of the United Kingdom and Ireland. the two most important EU non-discrimination directives, adopted under Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (now Article 19 of the treaty on the Functioning of the European union) - Racial Equality Directive (Directive 2000/43/EC) and Employment Framework Directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) - explicity mention harassment as prohibited form of discrimination. Legal definitions contained in these two directives define harassment as discriminationdiscrimination itself. Prior to the transposition of the EU non-discrimination directives into their laws, while few member states tackled this issue either within the context of the law on equal treatment (e.g. Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland) or outside this context (e.g. France), that is in the framework of criminal, civil, health and safety or employment legislation. As a result of the implementation of relevant provisions of the two main non-discrimination directives (Directives 200/43/EC and 200/78/EC) a definition of harassment has been included in legislations of all EU member states. In most member states such legislative definition is a literal copy of the definition of harrasment that can be found in the Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. The approach to the definition of harassment that appears to be the most "generous" from the perspective of victims of discriminatory harrasment is the one that was taken by British legislator. Such legal position in respect of the prohibition of discrimination has been developed in British case law and is based on the extensive interpretation of non-discrimination laws.

Politična korektnost predstavlja velik problem v današnji družbi, ki skuša biti inkluzivna. V inkluzivni družbi je namreč pomemben jezik, ki ga uporabljamo, saj ne želimo nikogar diskriminirati ali izključiti iz družbe. Magistrsko delo se osredotoča na politično korektne in nekorektne izraze, ki se pojavijo na socialnem omrežju Twitter v času predvolilne kampanje v ZDA in v Avstriji. Zanimal me je predvsem jezik štirih predsedniških kandidatov: Donalda Trumpa in Hillary Clinton iz ZDA ter Norberta Hoferja in Alexandra van der Bellena iz Avstrije. S pomočjo izbranih objav na socialnem omrežju Twitter sem skušala poiskati povezave med Avstrijo in ZDA. V teoretičnem delu sem navedla vse potrebne definicije in prikazala politično korektnost v povezavi z drugimi jezikovnimi fenomeni, kot so tabuji, stereotipi in predsodki. Ločeno sem obravnavala politično korektnost v Avstriji in politično korektnost v ZDA. Zanimala me je tudi povezava politične korektnosti s svobodo govora. Raziskala sem, s katerimi zakoni je urejena pravica do svobode govora v Avstriji oz. Evropi ter v ZDA. V empiričnem delu sledi analiza izbranih objav. Vse politično nekorektne in politično korektne izraze, ki so se pojavili v času predvolilne kampanje, sem razdelila v kategorije in jih analizirala tako statistično kot tudi jezikovno. Rezultati so pokazali razliko med ZDA in Avstrijo glede rabe politično korektnega jezika in zmage na volitvah. V ZDA je namreč zmagal kandidat, ki je med kampanjo uporabil največ politično nekorektnih izrazov. V Avstriji pa je zmagal politično najbolj korekten kandidat. Največ različnih politično nekorektnih izrazov se je pojavilo na področju rasnega/etničnega razlikovanja, kar sem tudi pričakovala. ; Political correctness matters for inclusive society. Language that we use is very important in an inclusive society because we do not want to discriminate or exclude anyone from society. This master's thesis focuses on politically correct and politically incorrect terms that appeared in the social network Twitter during the election campaign in the USA and Austria. I was interested in the language of the four presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton from the USA, and Norbert Hofer and Alexander Van der Bellen from Austria. I tried to find similarities and differences between Austria and the USA with the help of selected posts on Twitter. The theoretical part, contains the definition of political correctness and show political correctness in relation to other linguistic phenomena, such as taboos, stereotypes and prejudices. Political correctness in Austria and political correctness in the USA are compared and political correctness is associated to the freedom of speech. The legislation regulating right to the freedom of speech in Austria and in the USA is discussed. The empirical part presents an analysis of selected Twitter posts. All politically incorrect and politically correct terms that were found during the election campaign were divided into categories and analyzed both statistically as well as linguistically. I have found out that politically correct language is not necessary for an election victory. In the USA a candidate who used the most politically incorrect expressions during the campaign won. In Austria, on the other hand, the most politically correct candidate won. Most politically incorrect expressions appeared in the category racial/ethnical discrimination, which was expected.